https://x.com/amyswearer/status/2009021137599025524?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/carney/status/2009235317228757499?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
These posts and Dan's copy/paste of someone demonstrate a good point. Just because someone is "an attorney" or has some other credential doesn't mean that they are an absolute authority on one specific topic or incident.
The best examples of this on a larger scale are the "97% of scientist" global warming letter, and the "9/11 truther" letter that was circulating. In both cases there was an assumption that simply placing the words "scientist, engineer, or architect" behind one's name magically confers some elevated level of expertise. In the case of the "97%" letter, large numbers of the scientists had absolutely zero expertise in anything related to the climate. Likewise in the 9/11 letter there was no differentiation between a structural engineer and a sanitation engineer. Let alone the fact that architects have no expertise at all in structural.
So, just because someone claims to be an "attorney" doesn't automatically qualify them to speak authoritatively on a specific incident. Especially without access to all of the evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment